Skip to main content

What are the disadvantages of fastcgi for high performance websites? -


i have read comments fastcgi not choice high performance websites:

nginx, fastcgi , open sockets

what makes poor choice? other solutions (the thread above suggests shared memory or building http support application directly) might superior , why?

what disadvantages of fastcgi high performance websites? - stack overflow

learn, share, build

each month, on 50 million developers come stack overflow learn, share knowledge, , build careers.

join world’s largest developer community.

sign up

i have read comments fastcgi not choice high performance websites:

nginx, fastcgi , open sockets

what makes poor choice? other solutions (the thread above suggests shared memory or building http support application directly) might superior , why?

share|improve question
    
dev time can think of. cheap vps processes in no time fastcgi++ – user1382306 mar 5 '13 @ 3:41
    
@joecoderguy, link posted references performance aspects of fcgi (being poor). while i'm sure shared memory approach faster (and more complex), i'd love better understand fcgi causes poor performance. perhaps it's buffer copying? – hikeonpast mar 5 '13 @ 5:13
    
hmm, maybe they're talking server-side scripting sites. going 100% ajax relieved ton of pressure on php & .net sites. i'm getting websockets & webworkers, it's looking relieve pressure more. i'm sorry can't add hard core http stuff tho :/ – user1382306 mar 5 '13 @ 17:59
    

your answer

 
discard

posting answer, agree privacy policy , terms of service.

browse other questions tagged or ask own question.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

javascript - backbone.js Collection.add() doesn't `construct` (`initialize`) an object -

php - Get uncommon values from two or more arrays -

Adding duplicate array rows in Php -